On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Allowing SIGPIPE to kill the backend is completely infeasible, as the
> >> backend would be unable to release locks etc before dying.
>
> > So the upshot is really not that ignoring SIGPIPE is specifically
> > intended as the optimal solution but that writing a proper cleanup
> > handler for SIGPIPE seems very difficult.
>
> Well, if we did want to change this it would be far easier and safer to
> do the other thing (ie, set QueryCancel upon noticing a write failure).
>
> The question is whether doing either one is really a material
> improvement, seeing that neither is going to provoke an abort
> until/unless the backend actually tries to write something to the client.
Is there a server equivalent to PQstatus? If there were one, couldn't
the server periodically ping the client?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461